14 Guests, 1 User
pinto_one

Author Topic: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?  (Read 734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bret Culpepper

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User Webmaster Linux User Mobile User
T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« on: December 10, 2018, 01:44:35 AM »
Salutations Y'all;

I've searched the Entire site & couldn't find an answer.
My '72 122c.i./2.0 has installed a Blackjack Header, a Weiand Intake, along w/ the 390c.f.m. Holley designed for the 122c.i./2.0.
I've found a standard T9 & know about it's weaknesses, but will there be a Problem  w/ installing the T9 w/ the above Performance Parts?

Offline Rebolting73

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • FeedBack: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • 73 Runabout / 2.3 Turbo
    • My Pinto Page

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User Webmaster Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2018, 11:37:40 PM »
Hi Bret, once installed a T9 will hold up just fine with your modified 2.0.

Offline robertwwithee

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
  • FeedBack: +4/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 2
    Badges: (View All)
    Mobile User Topic Starter
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2018, 12:01:13 PM »
I agree as well

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2018, 10:42:17 AM »
They were factory gearboxes behind turbo 2.3s in the Merkur XR4Ti. That engine easily made 160hp/220ft-lbs at the wheels with just exhaust, which is probably 50-60% more than your 2.0 with basic mods.
I wouldn't worry about it.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Henrius

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • FeedBack: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • Three Pillars blog

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Windows User Apple User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2019, 04:31:44 PM »
Where did you find that T-9? I have been looking for one for the longest time.
1973 Pinto Runabout with upgraded 2.0 liter & 4 speed, and factory sunroof. My first car, now restored, and better than it was when it rolled off the assembly line!

Offline PintoMan1

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 6
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2019, 07:57:05 PM »
Where did you find that T-9? I have been looking for one for the longest time.

me as well almost 10 years I've been looking!!
1973 pinto runabout

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2019, 11:36:02 AM »
  I've noticed that we in Pinto-dom tend to talk about parts that are difficult, if not impossible to find (without mentioning that). And to someone who doesn't know, Id think they would assume the parts are readily available - when they are not.

Just recently it became know how difficult it is to find windshields. Then there are gear sets for the smaller 6-3/4" rear end. My own experience with Turbo Coupes is that I haven't seen one in a junk yard for well over 5 years. A Merkur..., it has probable been 10 years.  After an absence of a number of years I did stumble upon four in a Pick A Part (again about 10 years ago) but the forklift was cleaning out the row as I was contemplating if there was anything I wanted. That was the last time I saw one. And this is in sunny So. Cal. where cars linger longer and should be more readily available.

Yes, there was a time when these cars were more available. In 2007 I'd see 3-5 Turbo Coupes and a Merkur every month when I went to Pick Your Parts 50% off sales. But it seemed within 6 months that diminished. A few years later they were a rare sighting. So, I hope I don't come across as scolding anyone (I'm not trying to) but I feel when we give out information that these parts exist we need to also mention the difficulty in finding them.

I've been searching for an 80-86 Jeep T-178 transmission (Toploader) for my Sunbeam Tiger for nearly 20 years.  It has an every so slightly wider ratio than the wide ratio Toploader which today is a $1,200+ transmission.  I was hoping to find one at Pick Your Part for $150. The Jeep people always want the granny gear T-176/T-177 transmissions and I thought it would be an easy find - NOPE.

Offline Henrius

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • FeedBack: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • Three Pillars blog

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Windows User Apple User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2019, 12:30:43 PM »
This may totally impractical, but give it a thought. In Europe, particularly England, these 2 Liter cars were much more possible. I have always dreamed of a David Vizard reworked head on my engine. How practical would it be to import something from Europe like a cylinder head or a rebuilt T-9 transmission? How would it be possible to ship?
1973 Pinto Runabout with upgraded 2.0 liter & 4 speed, and factory sunroof. My first car, now restored, and better than it was when it rolled off the assembly line!

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2019, 02:51:22 PM »
I surely understand stepping up to the the challenge. And it is nice to 'do something different.' Unfortunately sometimes the cost vs the return on that cost is hard to justify. While still not available in great numbers there is the T-5 from the 2.3 Fords. You would be more likely to find that. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 2.0 has two sets of upper bolt holes and the 2.3/T-5 bellhousing will bolt on? It does require more modifications though.

You also have to weight if in everyday driving the 2.0 and a 5 speed are a good match. Some here have said no.  The 2.0 when it makes more power tends to make it in the higher RPM range. On a race track where you are moving at speed that is OK but in everyday driving it might be a hindrance.

At this point I think the Duratec engine (however one can make it fit - if it will fit) is the future. If I was younger and more ambitious I think I'd try and tackle that. If anyone is familiar with Urchfab on You Tube he adapted a Ford E105 to a Miata unibody substructure.


 


Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2019, 08:51:40 PM »
At this point I wouldn't even be committed to a Ford engine.

The 2.3 is old to the point that a lot of mass appeal and availability has waned, I think to Wittsend's point. Fancy parts are still available new, but only from select few vendors and certainly not low prices. That was always the 2.3T's appeal; it was cheap to make fast.
I think I last stumbled on a CL listing for a T9 five years ago. It was quite ugly and they wanted a bunch of money with no indication of condition.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Henrius

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • FeedBack: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • Three Pillars blog

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Webmaster Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Windows User Apple User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2019, 09:03:30 PM »

You also have to weight if in everyday driving the 2.0 and a 5 speed are a good match. Some here have said no.  The 2.0 when it makes more power tends to make it in the higher RPM range. On a race track where you are moving at speed that is OK but in everyday driving it might be a hindrance.

 


This quote made me think. So I fired up my 1973 Pinto with a 2.0, increased compression ratio and headers, drove it around making sharp accelerations from stops. I compared it to my 2006 Corolla 5 speed.

The Toyota 1.8L generates lots more torque at low RPMs. The author is right. The Ford 2.0 has to be wound up to higher RPM before it really generates the torque. So I wonder if hiway cruising at 2200 RPM is really practical in the Pinto like it is in my Corolla.
1973 Pinto Runabout with upgraded 2.0 liter & 4 speed, and factory sunroof. My first car, now restored, and better than it was when it rolled off the assembly line!

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: T9 Good to Install for a Performance '72 122c.i./2.0?
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2019, 09:03:34 PM »
No, it probably won't be. The stock 2.0 that was in my car liked to wind up. 2200 is at the bottom range of usable with the larger 2.3T that replaced it. Same with my '04 Tacoma 2.4.

2.0s are known for having intake ports that are, aside from being sub-optimally shaped, already too big for the engine. It makes the low-end rather soft in cruising RPMs.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.